Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that tasks are NOT cascade-deleted, the divergent outcomes with and without moveTo, and the restore interaction. This is exactly the 'what actually gets destroyed' context a mutation tool needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries load-bearing information (cascade behavior, restore behavior, pre-check, permission). The middle sentence is dense and clause-heavy, slightly reducing readability, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the destructive scope, the effect on child tasks under both parameter paths, reversibility via restore, and the permission requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for moveTo: it explains the consequence of supplying it ('they move to that project for good') versus omitting it (tasks resurface on restore). The 'project' parameter remains schema-only, which keeps this below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a project') that is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling delete tools (delete_item, delete_decision, delete_lesson, delete_context_note) by resource. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: it names fenbs_restore_project as the inverse operation and fenbs_list_projects as the recommended pre-check ('Say how many tasks it has before you do it'), and states the prerequisite ('Needs permission to change tasks'). Conditions and alternatives are all spelled out rather than inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.